Hate Mail

Jordan Srnec

I understand that in your arguments page you have
already stated that the "something cannot come from
nothing" argument is a "strawman attack". However,
it is still very true.

Of course it's true that something cannot come from nothing.
This is the first law of thermodynamics, which is routinely ignored
by the Bible.

I do not believe that Evolutionists believe that
life came from nothing. However, whatever you believe it came from
was obviously supernatural. For whatever it came from either always
existed with no end or beginning, came from something else which
came from something else etc., or came from another something which
always existed with no beginning or end. If you are a proponent of
the Big Bang Theory, then you believe that everything came from a
rock.

Actually, a massive singularity, not a "rock". And it
has always existed.

That rock either came from God or was God. If the
rock didn't come from God (and it didn't come from
nothing), then it is, by definition, God because it always existed-
it had no beginning.

Everything which is eternal is God by definition? That's
ridiculous. God is defined as a sentient supernatural being with
power over the universe and its denizens. God does not necessarily
have to be eternal, nor does everything which is eternal have to be
God. In fact, many god-myths throughout history have involved the
births and deaths of gods.

The physical universe has always existed. However, it bears no
resemblance whatsoever to any theistic belief system.

Definition of God is control over nature and
humans, immortality, and being supernatural. Something cannot
disappear into nothing either, so the rock is endless- immortal.
The rock is above natural law since it always was and will never
end- supernatural. It fulfills two attributes of a deity.

Your logic is deeply flawed. Think about it: you are saying that
God is eternal, therefore anything which is eternal must be God.
This is a serious fallacy of composition which is perhaps best
illustrated by using a mundane analogy. The Cubans are communists.
Does this mean that any communist must therefore be Cuban?

Darwin said, and I quote, "If it could be
demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down," in his
book The Origin of Species on page 171. He also said, quoted again,
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any
one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another
species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have
been produced through natural selection," in The Origin of
Species on pages 186 and 187.

The minute someone starts basing his argument on quotes rather
than reasoning, he reveals a literary rather than scientific
mindset. This does not bode well for the rest of your argument. The
theory of evolution was founded by Darwin. Darwin, however, is NOT
its god. This is science, not theology. If Darwin is proven wrong
about something, evolution is not necessarily proven wrong with
him.

[Editor's note: I should have added that no
one has successfully met Darwin's criteria for falsifying his
theory]

Sadly, for the evolutionary theory, there are
animals which could not have been formed through numerous,
successive, and slight modifications; and it has been proven that a
symbiotic relationship in which one species depends solely on the
other for survival does/did exist.

Nonsense. Every creationist attempt to produce an example of an
animal which could not have evolved has failed. In many cases, the
animal was described in a completely inaccurate fashion in order to
maintain the creationist deception. Animals such as the bombardier
beetle and the Monarch butterfly and the trilobyte have all been
used as the creationists' silver bullet, and all have been
conclusively shown to be examples of evolution, not creation.

The Surinam toad females have extra-long oviducts
and skin flaps on their backs. These toads are land-based
amphibians. They cannot lay eggs in water (because there isn't
any where thay live) and they cannot lay eggs on dry land or they
would shrivel and die.

"There isn't any" water where they live? They are
amphibians! Can't you see that glaring contradiction in
your own words? It's not hard to do a quick search on Surinam
toads and find that they do live in around water. In fact,
they mate in the water!

The females can lay eggs on their backs with their
specialised oviducts and the skin flaps envelope the young and
sustain them in a liquid substance, safe from the elements.

Wrong again. The females lay eggs which stick to its back after
fertilization. They sink into the spongy skin, which forms a
honeycomb structure to support them over time.

When the water of their habitat dried up they
would need these body parts immediately or the species would go
extinct.

Where on Earth did you read this? Did you honestly believe some
creationist website when they said that the amphibian Surinam toad
lives in a waterless environment? The Surinam toad's habitat is
South American rainforest! Their habitat did not dry up!

If these body parts happened one at a time or
together in slow, succesive manner, then they would have died out
because they had no way of laying their eggs. An oviduct without
skin flaps is as worthless as skin flaps without an oviduct or no
voidcut or skin flaps at all! This alon, Darwin admitted,
demolishes his theory.

No, it demonstrates your creationist source's willingness to
resort to blatant lies in order to attack evolution theory.

Onto dodos. Dodo birds ate a plant (Calvaria
Major) and spread its seeds on the ground. In the birds gizzard,
the seeds were scratched by stones and made able to germinate. Only
the scrathed stones grew into plants. When the dodo went extinct
the plant nearly did also, but humans saved it by artificially
scratching the stones, only these artificially scratched stones
will germinate. Once again, the Darwinian theory is annihilated by
a fact which Darwin admitted would ruin it.

Nonsense. The Dodo and the Calvaria Major are very easy to
explain through evolution. It needed to eat stones in order to make
its digestive system work, just as the pigeon does today. The harsh
conditions in its gizzard would have destroyed delicate seeds, so
variants of the Calvaria Major with hardier seeds gained an obvious
evolutionary advantage. Over time, variants with extremely tough
seeds would have become dominant, so that they became dependent
upon the dodo's grinding gizzard as part of their reproductive
cycle.

At no time do we have a structure "formed for the exclusive
good of another species". The grinding conditions in the
dodo's gizzard were not there for the exclusive benefit
of the Calvaria Major; they were an integral part of the dodo's
own digestive system, just as they are for the pigeon. The Calvaria
Major merely adapted to take advantage of it.

Thank you for hearing me out, J. Srnec.

I strongly suggest that you consider getting your information
about evolution and biology from sources other than creationist
propaganda. They have a habit of acting as though evolution cannot
explain phenomena which it can explain, with great ease.